Stubby,
Your on the money, the rules in UK are different. Doubleu whatever sound like a fine product of the “Australian Way”, forever thinking up tricky interpretations of “the law” to get around the fact that committing aviation in Australia is a strict liability criminal offence. When these highly imaginative but legally incompetent “opinions” hit a real court, they have a half life measured in milliseconds. Doubleu, old mate, stick with your day job, your “legal reasons” just ain’t.
Anybody remember the very first QF aircraft to visit Oshkosh, (very first Jumbo at Oshkosh), did a great flypast. All AOK with FAA. Some nark in the crowd ( we have very long memories) who was a Captain with an Australian domestic airline felt the need to file a 225 with the Department of Changing Names.
Can’t allow criminal law breakers to get a bit of great international publicity for an airline we domestic pilots heartily detest, can we. Different union as well.
The bureaucrats were suitably peeved at such wilful displays of international public lawlessness, without QF having got down on bended knees and asked contritely for their infinite blessing in advance. I really felt very sorry for the way the QF Captain was treated, including a demotion.
I hope this lot have a “CASA Display Approval”, E(X)BA is on the VH- register.
The poms are quite simply not so completely and totally anal about this sort of thing, it’s ONLY in Australia that pilots etc. are totally preoccupied with “the regulations”. Sad, really, a national psyche that says: “If it moves, regulate it”, where the most common aviation term seems to be “mandatory”, followed by “strict liability offence, ---- see s6.1 of the Criminal Code.”
Anybody remember the great flypast by a TAA B727 at Avalon, the year the display line was so far away from the crowd, you needed field glasses to see the aircraft. That Captain was retiring the following week, so “they” couldn’t shaft him. It was beautifully done.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The PanAm SPs had a better payload/range than the QF Rollers, the Pratt powered were almost 13 tonnes lighter than the SP38s, mostly engine and pylon weight, and a heavier QF interior. The TSFC for the Roller was barely enough to make up for the cost of the engine weight.
The only reason QF had a better completion rate was the fact that PanAm had to always have an alternate, and the limitations of the US re-dispatch rules.